FederalContractor

This thread is very helpful but a few years old, and I'd like to determine whether there has been any clarification on exactly how to calculate the existing "cost of contract performance incurred for personnel" standard at 13 CFR 125.6, with regard to contracts for services. I realize there is a proposed rule that will completely revise the way Limitations on Subcontracting is calculated, but it has not been made Final yet. Vern Edwards stated at the time that he had reviewed 250+ cases as well as other materials, and found nothing that spelled out exactly how the calculation should be done.

Thanks, Fred.

Thank you. It's good to see that has been fixed.

Sorry, I did not read far enough on that post. In any case, I do think that 8(a) sole-sources against GSA Schedules are pretty common. I wonder if I'm missing something here.

JI20874, I noted your prior post on 11 February 2014, in which you stated, "A sole-source (or "directed") 8(a) award by task order under a schedule is permissible. See 19.804-6." http://www.wifcon.com/discussion/index.php?/topic/2380-gsa-schedules-and-far-19000a3/ Can you clarify your comments? Has the law on 8(a) sole-sources under GSA Schedules changed very recently? For what it's worth, in practice I have seen agencies awarding 8(a) sole-sources against GSA Schedules very frequently. I'm unclear about the relationship between FAR 8.405-6 and other independent authority for 8(a) sole-so

I have a question relating to the procedure for an 8(a) sole-source award against a GSA Schedule (such as GSA IT Schedule 70), for which the offeror is qualified as an 8(a) small business. My question is whether the Ordering Contracting Officer is required to submit an offer to SBA for each task order issued as an 8(a) sole-source on a GSA Schedule that was awarded to a vendor as an 8(a) small business. In my research, I noted FAR 19.804-6 (a), which states, “Separate offers and acceptances must not be made for individual orders under multiple award, Federal Supply Schedule (FSS), multi-agency

As others have noted, a NAICS code appeal is possible, but the Contracting Officer is given pretty broad discretion on selecting a NAICS code. If the code selected is "reasonable," I think your chances of succeeding at OHA are low, even if another NAICS code is reasonable or arguably better.

SBA just confirmed that it's an error, and it is being corrected.

Retreadfed, I noticed that too. The editing error also made it into the 2014 annual edition of the CFR. I think I'll send a notice to Dean Koppel, who is the POC on that Oct. 2, 2013 Federal Register. Or would there be a better POC to correct this?

ji20874, I believe you're citing an older (2013) version of this regulation. If you look it up on eCFR (http://www.ecfr.gov/) the sub-paras (1) through (4) are absent under para (a). Also, see the 2014 edition of the CFR on http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionCfr.action?collectionCode=CFR Direct link to section: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2014-title13-vol1/pdf/CFR-2014-title13-vol1-sec125-6.pdf Compare this to the 2013 edition, which actually makes sense, and appears to be what you are citing: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2013-title13-vol1/pdf/CFR-2013-title13-vol1-sec125-6.p

ji20874, the only restrictive language is in paras ( b ) and ( c ), which relate specifically to SDVOSBs and HUBZones. Para (a) is simply a lead-in to paragraphs ( b ) and ( c ), and ends with "Must agree that..."

13 CFR 125.6 had previously been applicable to all small business concerns. However, I noticed that it has been amended in a way that makes its application very confusing. Section (a) references "small business concerns," but now section (B ) has been made specifically applicable to SDVO SBCs, and section ( c ) is applicable to HUBZone firms. There no longer appears to be a section generally applicable to small business concerns. Am I missing something?!? I've copied the applicable CFR section below for convenience. Your comments would be appreciated. ---------------------------

I'm curious to know how the Competition in Subcontracting clause, FAR 52.244-5, is actually applied or enforced. The qualification, "consistent with the objectives and requirements of the contract" seems to leave a lot of room for interpretation, presumably at the prime contractor's discretion. If a contractor includes a proposed subcontractor's resources, past performance and qualifications in their proposal, and an award is made partially on that basis, wouldn't this be a substantial factor in considering the "objectives and requirements of the contract"? The prime contractor would not be

Joel makes a good point. While I wouldn't condone getting sloppy or complacent, it's worth noting that I've never seen any Contracting Officer or other government officials aggressively enforcing the Limitations on Contracting clause as it is literally written, or taking militant positions on some of the more ambiguous issues surrounding this clause. If you are in fact performing a majority of the work, and can demonstrate it, I'm not terribly concerned about you getting hammered on technicalities regarding the Limitations on Subcontracting clause. Of course there are other important reason

RetreadFed, I understand your points. The footnote may be nothing more than very misleading dicta. If that's the case, there was really no reason for GAO to reference the Defense Authorization law in its decision at all, it serves no purpose. That would be unfortunate if that's the case. I look forward to further clarification on this in the future.